I agree with you, that a tx fee of 1000$ would make Bitcoin unusable. Not just for the lightning network, but for everybody. Now tell me, why should somebody (incl a bank) pay 1000$ tx fee? Just a rethorical question, of course nobody is going to pay a fee that high. Exactly because of this, your scenario is not going to happen, of course unless inflation ate the $ value and you pay 1000$ for a loaf of bread.
Bitcoin fees depend on people paying that fee, so we have a free market here, esp. when the 2nd layer (Lightning) fees are competing with the mainchain. Right now you can send Bitcoins for 4Sat/vb which is like half a dollar for an average tx and on Lightning this would be way cheaper.
Lightning is a solution for small payments, like buying a coffee and the mainnet has its advantages with big payments.
For the majority $1000 locking fee is a deal breaker,
but a bank can pay that $1000 locking fee and perform 1 million transactions with another bank in a month.
Which puts the banks cost per transaction at only $ 0.001 per transaction.
So for a Bank using LN, Bitcoin is still usable because of the # of transactions they can generate between other banks.
For the normal person, they make less than 50 transactions per month, and those are not between the same person or service.
Which is why LN or Liquid works best for Banks.
Who said banks would practically pay $1,000 for a “locking fee”? That’s based on assumptions, and your own biased assumptions at that. Bitcoin Exchanges, which should be, in my opinion, the biggest liquidity providers for Lightning has not adopted it yet.
Now say you lock $50 away in LN for your Coffee shop, and you paid the current $18 transaction fee.
Are you listening, or getting the context of AGD’s post? Who would be so stupid to pay $18 to open an channel for $50?
Hmm,
I know you are only 12, it is stupid to pay $18 to lock up $50, which is why the LN coffee shop myth is blown.
Which was the point , junior.
Banks are the only ones, that LN or Liquid could ever be feasible to use , as they are the only one that make enough transactions between other banks that it could be viable at even $1000 onchain fees. They do still teach math to 12 year olds, or do you skip school alot?
Maybe you should ask Maxwell to explain it to you.
Blockstream is partnering with Banks to use Liquid.
https://www.coindesk.com/unpacking-the-avit-avanti-banks-new-digital-asset-being-built-with-blockstream
https://www.coindesk.com/in-first-pure-crypto-hire-silvergate-bank-recruits-blockstream-liquid-network-exec
In his new job, Richman will be in charge of crypto customer growth for Silvergate. He is taking over the duty from the executive vice president of corporate development, Ben Reynolds, who will focus on the bank’s newer initiatives such as crypto-collateralized loans and the bank’s application for a New York trust company license.
FYI:
By Blockstream artificially limiting bitcoin onchain transaction capacity which keeps the fees high.
This gives them the potential to create profit for their company by creating offchain networks for banks.
Oh, you thought they made LN for the little guy, and you were wrong.
No worries the banks will still drive the price of BTC higher, but don't expect to be sending alot of bitcoins onchain unless you are rich or a bank.
Even though you are starting to become offending, I will clear up things for you about Lightning:
If you are an enduser, you might want to open a channel for more than just 50$ and the fee to open that channel depends on what the actual fee for a btc tx is. So right now you pay about 1000 Satoshis btc tx fee to open a channel, which will save you alot of fees in the future.
You don't need to open a channel to every coffee shop you are going to, but you would have a channel open to a well connected node and all of your payments will be forwarded by that node to your favorite coffee shop (if he is also well connected to other lightning nodes which I assume)
You don't understand Lightning. A transaction this big would cost a fortune on Lightning, because the fees on Lightning depend on the number of Satoshis you are sending, while Bitcoin transactions depend on their size in bytes. As I said, Lightning is a solution for the enduser and not for banks.
Gotcha , you think blockstream can do no wrong.
Most Bitcoiners think that way.
As far as LN goes, keep your eyes on it,
in time it will be apparent to all , that only Banks are suitable to use LN, and since they will be running the LN hubs,
they will earn those fees, that you think they can't afford.
Have a Nice Day.